TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has filed two rebate claims under Rule 18 of the said Rules read with Notification No. 19/204)4 CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 for the duty paid on good exported. The rebate sanctioning authority vide the impugned order rejected the rebate claim for the following reasons: a). The applicants had furnished the certification /4 declaration in Para 3(b) of ARE-1's to the effect of availment of Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.04 and as such it was mandatory to clear the goods for export in Form ARE-2 Accordingly, the rebate claim should have been filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/DC in charge of the premises approved for manufacturing and not with Maritime Commissioner. b) The applicants had not furnished the inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is duly supported bye the facts recorded by the original authority in his order dated 13.05.2013 itself. In the first page of Order-in-Original, the original authority has recorded the description of the various documents filed by the applicants in support of the rebate claim made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the item No. 4, thereof is the Central Excise invoices under which the goods exported were removed by the manufacturer. Applicants submits that all the categorical averments in the order in original is directly contrary to the finding recorded later by the original authority as well as the lower appellate authority in the impugned order. Accordingly, both the orders of the lower authorities being contrary to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoice were already submitted, along with rebate claim. 6. Government has carefully gone through the records of the case including order-in-original, order-in-appeal and grounds as made in revision application. 7. Government observes that the applicant's rebate claim were held inadmissible for the reasons of non submission of impugned excise invoices. Commissioner(A) decided the case in favor of the department. Now, the applicant has filed this revision Application on the ground mentioned n Para (4) above. 8. Government observes that .the applicant has contended that they have submitted original copies of impugned excise invoices along with rebate claim. During personal hearing also they have submitted copies of acknowledgement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled Applying the ratio of afore said judgement Government finds that even if copy of excise invoices are not submitted, the export of duty paid goods may be ascertained on the basis of other collateral documents. In this case there is no dispute of payment of duty per se, which is also evident from copies of impugned AREs-1 where in such duty particulars are clearly given. Further there is no dispute that such duty paid goods have not actually been exported. Under such circumstances, when substantial condition of export of duty paid goods stands established, the rebate claims cant be held inadmissible considering a situation that excise invoices are ....